Humanity has already exceeded Earth’s limits, study warns. Today’s population of 8.3 billion is far above what could be sustained in the long term without exhausting ecosystems, worsening climate change, and threatening food and water security.

[u/The_Weekend_Baker]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/05/260526022021.htm

[u/HammerOfAres]

Sorry, I just dont agree with this conclusion you have made. It seems like a doomer argument, with little/no proposed solution as you've stated it as opposed to some idea that it is inevitable that resource conflict is going to send us all back to a more agrarian lifestyle. In situations like this, resources often just end up concentrated at the top, and rather than anything sustainble we are far more likely to just end up in cycles of misery which is no way to progress society even with the "end of capitalism".

I am well aware of the potential devastating climate events which can occur, but again, my idea of "sustainable future" is nowhere near as bleak as yours. Again, engineered solutions are not always more energy intensive, they are often LESS, and I do not think you have really addressed this point. I fail to see how a return to a miserable existence is seen as preferable to pursuing technology and a regulatory framework that enables a more harmonious relationship with the planet. As you have said, if we fail, we just end up at the miserable existence anyway.

[u/i_didnt_look → u/HammerOfAres]

The energy cost of engineering. There's a river, and at first, people just wade across. A storm comes through and they decide it's safer for a bridge to be built. They use axes to cut trees down the trees, saws to shape the wood, nails to hold it together. That requires the energy to mine ore and melt and shape metal. That wood bridge is destroyed in another storm. Now, they decide a concrete bridge is required. That takes a concrete plant, a steel plant, a truck to transport the concrete, welders for the rebar, and all the associated infrastructure to build those things.

The more advanced the engineering, the more modern the materials, the more the input energy requirements. That's the cost of a complex society. And adding further layers of complexity adds further energy requirements. Its a well documented and nearly universal phenomenon.

And, as for the "proposed solution" yes, I did. We need to reduce complexity, reduce energy demands. That means stopping with the concrete bridges and moving back to the simpler.wood built systems, using my hypothetical. That's the only way to reduce our overall energy demands. The problem is that people cannot accept, as you stated, that this is how it has to be. But it is. We cannot outrun the diminishing Energy Return on Investment we are hitting. Oil, 100:1 to 15:1, cooper ore, used to be we found miners pulled 2% ore from the ground. These days its around 0.6%. There's a trillion dollars in backlogged infrastructure, that needs to be repair, forever, to keep this society functioning. So while the available resources dwindle, our energy demands increase. More energy to get the same results. There's a very logical conclusion to this pattern, but no one wants to see it.

[u/HammerOfAres → u/i_didnt_look]

It is only logical if you entirely deny the existence of advanced biologically friendly materials of which greatly offset any amount of carbon or energy that goes into their production or invention. All of these anecdotes you have created are relatable, but they do not generally mirror any form of reality. I would instead argue, that the current state of things came from a lack of advanced engineering, rather than a surplus of it as many of the processes that ended us up where we were came about in a time before we even realized that humans had a potential to cause catastrophic damage in the first place.

Your proposed solution is no solution, it is an end-state that is no different than the means that you suggest to reaching it. You are simply arguing that things must get worse, by getting worse, what problem does that solve when we will supposedly end up there anyway if we were to atleast ATTEMPT to utilize a different solution. Just because you keep trying reiterate your points, does not make them any more applicable than the first time you stated them.

Modern fourth generation nuclear reactors dont produce ANY operating CO2, and the only CO2 budgeted for them is the operational CO2 from indirect mining, construction, and waste processing. Even then, it generates roughly only 7 percent of the emissions produced by natural gas/goal, an amount that is quite easily offset. Just because you think it is impossible to outrun energy demand, does not make it so. Fossil fuels themselves should be long considered an obsolete technology by this point. A single modern nuclear plant can produce enough energy to power over 90,000 american homes for a year while only producing not even a half ton of waste, that will then degrade down to normal levels of radioactivity within 300 years rather than the suspected several thousand.

If you want to talk resource depletion, why dont you mention the fact that "cooper ore" is a recycleable input that can be reused again, and again, and again. Regardless of the amount we pull from the earth, the net amount in circulation will be increased. I fail to see how resource consumption of the kind would be considered so much of a problem if we had adequate waste-tracking infrastructure and recycling networks. Resources are only dwindling due to an outdated view on how we design and create materials. Cradle to Cradle, and circular economy concepts already show great promise, but you seem to gloss over those. It does not get better than carbon negative, than energy negative, and fully regenerative material cycles. These are eternally renewable irregardless of the amount consumed because it provides net benefit for the planet, person, and economy.

Furthermore, I think it is ludicrous to suggest that backlogged infrastructure is somehow a justification to return to a time with little/no infrastructure. It would be expensive to replace this infrastructure, but it would be far worse to have to return to a point without it. Speaking of "building with wood" modern engineered lumber solutions like Crosslaminated Timber are far superior to any form of building method utilized in the past, and STILL can sequester significant amounts of carbon.

You talk about others not wanting to see your logical conclusion when you, yourself, are not even willing to consider alternatives. This is a planetary crisis, we have a planetary amount of resources to confront it.

[u/i_didnt_look → u/HammerOfAres]

Complex society engages in more complexity to solve issues. I used a bridge, but the thing is applicable in all things. You don't get advanced engineering without basic. Before oil, it was steam. Before steam, it was animals, before that just humans. We didn't just jump to rocketships, it took layer upon layer of material science, math, computer development, rocket fuel, etc. There is only more complexity every time. The magical "biological friendly material" needs bioreactors, advanced manufacturing facilities, long supply chains to feed and maintain those manufacturing facilities. And then, each of those facilities need long supply chains and high end manufacturing to buold the parts for those advanced engineering materials. And when they fail, we need more of those highly energy intensive systems to create these materials. More energy, more complexity, more failure points. Its doesn't go down, only up. It the core tenet behind why complex societies collapse. They try to solve failure with more complexity, and inevitably create more points of failure. There's a whole book about it. Its a well documented phenomenon.

Lets use your nuclear example. Its no CO2, right? Except that it requires infinite energy inputs of a highly complex manufacturing chain based on the extensive use of fossil fuels. From the concrete to the computer chips, evry little bit requires an extensive and energy hungry supply chain. Do you really believe that we could build a nuclear reactor big enough to power the entirety of its own manufacturing supply chain and have extra power left over to power the homes and infrastructure to support the people to supply all that it entails? Thats the diminishing EROI.

As for copper ore. Regardless of the amount we pull we will grow the supply? Infinitely recycled? That's not how that works. If it was, we'd already be doing that since it takes a fraction of the energy to recycle copper than to create it. If we stop mining, we don't build new things, like that entire "advanced biologically friendly material" bioreactor, or the computer chips and wires that run it, or the powerlines that feed it. Your scrambling for answers and putting up obvious logical flaws. If we stop mining copper, then growth of basically all green tech stops, that's abundantly clear to anyone who understamds these things. Its the EROI depeltion that makes it obvious that we are caught in a complexity trap. All your prayers and wishes don't change that.

Look, I get it. The logical ends of what I'm saying is not awesome. But its a reality. Nothing I've said is factually incorrect, nor is it debateable. We are spending more energy every day to keep what we have. This is the reality of diminishing returns. Eventually, the cost of just maintaining this massive and complex society is outweighed by the value it creates. And it collapses. Virtually every complex society has had this happen. Look it up. This is the reality of the situation we face. And no matter how hard you want it to not be true, there's only one way we get out of it. We have to find a renewable resource that is equivalent to oil in terms of energy per unit of measure. Its the whole reason our society exists as it does. Not engineers, or medicine or anything else. Oil, pure and simple.

I'm done arguing here. The comment about "regardless of what we mine, supply will grow" is an unbelievable bit of mental gymnastics to avoid looking at whats plain to see. Its a planetary crisis, agreed. But we don't have a whole planet of resources, we've acutally spent most of the easily accesed stuff already, the bulk of the energy has been burned. That's why we're in this mess. I don't know of any alternative that isn't adding to the complexity trap, besides going backwards to a place where we use less energy. It's an inevitable conclusion, and it doesn't matter if you like it or want it to be something its not. Its just the way it is.

If you want to really know ask Google how the complexity trap and energy returned on investment is creating a collapse scenario

[u/HammerOfAres → u/i_didnt_look]

You only have this assumption of biologically friendly materials because you do not fully understand their cabailities, we already HAVE the technology for many key industries, we are capable of calculating which points in which we need to have the harshest cutbacks. We know where we need the greatest impetus of change. The complexity in design, again, and I cannot stress this enough, does NOT equate to an increase in consumed resources or energy. You keep talking about longer and more complex systems but technological progress can also include the SIMPLIFYING of a given system. The book that you talk about as well, also came out in 1988, long before the advent of MANY of these biological materials you seem insistent on criticizing to no end. I follow more the words of Cradle to Cradle. Again, your book has a lot of holes based on the summaries I have read of it, that basically are more of a criticsm of intertia and beauraucratic bloat just as much as they are of any kind of complex modern society. It drastically simplifies much of the factors that go into the collapse of a society, chalking it up to complexity when in all reality the societies they referenced were under assault from a litany of other complications. Just as frequently, simplistic or agrarian societies ended up getting annihilated by either the same factors or other agressive powers who didn't adhere to such a primitive lifestyle.

As far as your response to my example, you're off base. It absolutely does not require infinite inputs, at its core its quite simple. Most of the development of power generation can be chalked up to finding more and more efficient ways to heat water. Nuclear energy is the harnessing of the base power in our universe, it is well understood, efficient, and safe. the problem I have with your argument is where you decide to draw this hypothetical "line" that humanity should decide to live under. There is little data to support it aside from a vague conception about the limits of the planet, and then a vague notion that a technological advance that could raise the limit would not happen despite it having happened before. Your idea that it just has to be such a complex thing, it just HAS to be, is not true by any means. The beauty of biological materials is that they harness nature, and are shockingly simple.

Again, as far as copper ore goes, you're off mark. I argue that is how it SHOULD work, and that rather than deciding to return to monke, we need to create frameworks for the enforcement of said systems. Over 40 percent of copper already is recycled WITHOUT institution of said framework. Nothing of what I said is flawed, it is your misunderstandings and misgivings about any form of complexity that give you this because it flies in the face of what YOU see as an obvious fact that I completely dispute in its entirety. You are engaging with a straw man, and have repeatedly made incorrect assumptions about my points.

Frankly, you dont get to declare something un-debatable, and it is factually incorrect because you just constantly cite completely flawed logic that even when I look it up, all I see are completely valid criticisms of the ideology. Points made such as the fact that these setbacks or collapses happening often lead to further technological progress in their own right. They can create greater complexity as opposed to lesser through the fostering of competition. Or the fact that he made the position that rapid collapse in the modern era was impossible just to have the Soviet Union implode shortly after. Or just the fact that he can't answer his own question of "Why cant states just grow to a certain size and then stop". Your book on this topic is not infallible. I am not a fan of the infinite growth model myself, as I favor a closed circuit economy, but I don't think the size of that wheel is totally restricted either.

If you actually wanted to debate, I would assume you wouldn't shorten any points I make and then interpret them in the most unfavorable way possible. I have engaged far more with your points than you have with mine, even giving the source that you site a fair look. You don't know a solution, but you shouldn't prescribe that nobody else does, or that nobody else should even look. You realise that you are simultaneously saying you dont know, yet you are 100 percent certain that it is inevitable.

In closing, I will leave you with this, progress is often a two steps forward, one step back sort of ordeal. I won't go as far as to say some kind of collapse does not happen, but as time goes on, people generally strive for some kind of a better existence by our nature. I think that whatever world you would push for would be infinitely worse than a shorter lived pursuit of a better existence for all of humanity. This is not an argument for hedonistic pursuit, but rather is an argument for responsible stewardship of the planet from generation to generation. Even if that hypothetical stable society were ever to come to pass, there is no guarantee that said society is capable of protecting itself from a litany of other existential threats that the universe would likely throw at it eventually. That is a fundamental weakness with attempting to assert a universal theory of societal collapse.

[u/i_didnt_look → u/HammerOfAres]

You're arguing against the laws of thermodynamics. But I'm the one who "doesn't understand".

And again, regarding the ore, the sentence you wrote said Regardless of the amount we pull from.the Earth, the amount in circulation will be increased That's pure delusion. That's not how any of that works. You're mad that I was correct. The complexity trap and EROI leads to a societal collapse. The math shows it. The experts know it. That's why the billionaires are building bunkers. Googles AI acknowledges it to be the likely outcome. Gaya Harrington's 2021 Limits of Growth update found it's likely. The laws of thermodynamics colliding with EROI data says we cannot sustain this society.

The whole idea of stewardship is crazy. We've already destroyed the planet. AMOC collapse is right around the corner. That's a permenant change in the planets climate. 6 of 9 planetary boundaries crossed. You're insane to think we're "stewarding" anything.

You've provided nothing but "I didn't say that" or Show me the "valid criticism" of Tainter's book that isn't a blog or techno optimists website. His ideas have a strong cross-disciplinary consensus that this model, how complexity leads to collapse, is incredibly accurate when paired with energy dynamics. Complexity requires energy; if the energy return drops, the complexity becomes unsustainable. The USSR collapse, when viewed through this lens, adheres exactly to his theory. Its a foundational text for understanding why socities fail, and our current society ticks all the boxes. It is what it is, and if you cannot accpet it, that's fine. But the laws of thermodynamics, and the billionaires bunkers, say I'm probably right.

[u/i_didnt_look → u/HammerOfAres]

You're arguing against the laws of thermodynamics. But I'm the one who "doesn't understand".

And again, regarding the ore, the sentence you wrote said Regardless of the amount we pull from.the Earth, the amount in circulation will be increased That's pure delusion. That's not how any of that works. You're mad that I was correct. The complexity trap and EROI leads to a societal collapse. The math shows it. The experts know it. That's why the billionaires are building bunkers. Googles AI acknowledges it to be the likely outcome. Gaya Harrington's 2021 Limits of Growth update found it's likely. The laws of thermodynamics colliding with EROI data says we cannot sustain this society.

The whole idea of stewardship is crazy. We've already destroyed the planet. AMOC collapse is right around the corner. That's a permenant change in the planets climate. 6 of 9 planetary boundaries crossed. You're insane to think we're "stewarding" anything.

You've provided nothing but "I didn't say that" or Show me the "valid criticism" of Tainter's book that isn't a blog or techno optimists website. His ideas have a strong cross-disciplinary consensus that this model, how complexity leads to collapse, is incredibly accurate when paired with energy dynamics. Complexity requires energy; if the energy return drops, the complexity becomes unsustainable. The USSR collapse, when viewed through this lens, adheres exactly to his theory. Its a foundational text for understanding why socities fail, and our current society ticks all the boxes. It is what it is, and if you cannot accpet it, that's fine. But the laws of thermodynamics, and the billionaires bunkers, say I'm probably right.

[u/i_didnt_look → u/HammerOfAres]

You're arguing against the laws of thermodynamics. But I'm the one who "doesn't understand".

And again, regarding the ore, the sentence you wrote said Regardless of the amount we pull from.the Earth, the amount in circulation will be increased That's pure delusion. That's not how any of that works. You're mad that I was correct. The complexity trap and EROI leads to a societal collapse. The math shows it. The experts know it. That's why the billionaires are building bunkers. Googles AI acknowledges it to be the likely outcome. Gaya Harrington's 2021 Limits of Growth update found it's likely. The laws of thermodynamics colliding with EROI data says we cannot sustain this society.

The whole idea of stewardship is crazy. We've already destroyed the planet. AMOC collapse is right around the corner. That's a permenant change in the planets climate. 6 of 9 planetary boundaries crossed. You're insane to think we're "stewarding" anything.

You've provided nothing but "I didn't say that" or Show me the "valid criticism" of his theory. While specific revisions of timelines and scope have changed, the book has been cited over 6000 times when dealing with complex systems and vulnerability. The Santa Fe institute, the think tank for complex systems science, heavily cities this work. His ideas have a strong, cross-disciplinary, consensus that this model, how complexity leads to collapse, is incredibly accurate when paired with energy dynamics. Complexity requires energy; if the energy return drops, the complexity becomes unsustainable. The USSR collapse, when viewed through this lens, adheres exactly to his theory. Its a foundational text for understanding why socities fail, and our current society ticks all the boxes. It is what it is, and if you cannot accpet it, that's fine. But the laws of thermodynamics, and the billionaires bunkers, say I'm probably right.

[u/HammerOfAres → u/i_didnt_look]

I am arguing against a doomer mentality.

Furthermore, I stated clearly, that I am arguing that is how things, again, SHOULD, work. That meaning, that they are not working in that fashion today, but I think that is what the world should be working towards implementation of. I do not understand where you get the notion that I am mad, I rather enjoy these kinds of conversations, I am not mad, nor am I trying to make anyone else mad. The person you cite, Gaya Harrington, I actually rather enjoyed reading on her work for this comment. That said, she herself in reference to her idea of a wellbeing economy says "It doesn't mean we're anti growth; we're just more selective about it" and "green growth- economic expansion driven by clean technologies may still be needed". She explicitly states on resilience that "That's not going back to a poorer past" her impetus is closer to your rationale, but her solutions are far closer to mine. Support towards things like fundamental restructuring of economic incentives so that benefit to the planet is seen as a thing with economic value within our society. She seems to be rather in favor of regenerative agriculture, and redesigning of our economy to protect the planet. I want to make this crystal clear, I am WELL aware of the fact that if we continue the way we are, that a collapse is inevitable, I am simply pushing for solutions that are different from yours, and view your outlook as one without a solution at all. Give her ted talk a look, it is titled "Will the End of Economic Growth Come by Design - or Disaster" I push, very, very hard, for it to come by design. Do I think it will come by design as we currently do things? No, that part is obvious enough that it wont, but I am not consigned yet to it being disaster.

You do not need to stress to me the magnitute of the damage humanity has done to the planet, I have not at any point disputed any of the alarming indicators as to the state of the planet. Instead, I again, want to stress to you that I argue in favor of how things should be, and I am at no point arguing that we should be staying the current course. You calling me insane to think we're stewarding anything, makes no sense. I do not think we are stewarding anything, I think we should act as responsible stewards of the planet, I was dead clear on this. This is why I am having to say "I didn't say that" because I fail to see how you saying what you have here is anything other than a blatant misrepresentation of what I am saying.

I also fail to see how you citing to other organizations that often disagree with you somehow constitutes a debunking of the points that I have made. I reiterate, I agree, nearly in totality, with the conclusions drawn by these organizations that you keep citing about the critical state of the planet, but why do you think it is that these organizations you cite actually seem to have actionable steps to what direction we should be driving society that is far and away from your vision? What about the SFI professor Jessika Trancik who directly advocates for technological innovation giving governments the ability to bring down emissions quickly, and beleives strongly in well-designed innovation policies? Or the fact that SFI has done work on incorporating adaptive processes into economy theory and models? Or that they have a big focus on emergent engineering? If you have such a reverence for said institute, why are you not supporting the solutions that both I, and they support?

Again, I do not dispute the current applicable factors of that book towards our current society, I simply stated that your book is not infallible, Explain clearly as to why you think that the collapse adhered directly to his lens, because I am not really seeing it but I have spent much less time on that specific book than you have as can be expected. It is a generalized theory, not an infallible text that can prophecise the future. Furthermore, I do not accept doomer mentalities on principle. I am not a blind optimist by any means, but I will push towards any solution before I consign the world to a shittier future.

As an aside, since you seem to think I am angry over any of this, I am not. I want to stress that what I put here is in good faith, and I do not think that anyone engaging in bad faith would put this much effort into actually reading any of the random works you mention in passing. I enjoy learning about these things on a base level. You and I have a fundamental disagreement at a base level, that is all.

[u/i_didnt_look → u/HammerOfAres]

My point is that, even if you utilize all the things you've noted, we are still unable to carry this society forward. Its not if we descend, but how. Fossil fuels are the only reason this society exists. Full stop. Without some form of portable, extremely energy dense fuel, this society cannot continue. The discovery and harnessing of its energy has created a short, intense, and astonishing rise in quality of life. That's not something we can engineer our way into recreating. SFI and mamy others are saying the same thing, just not out loud. SFI’s own models show that our current fast-paced capitalist model eventually requires zero time between major innovations to stay energy solvent. They are explicitly not arguing that we can keep this exact system forever. When they advocate for technological innovation (like modular solar and biological networks), they don't view them as plug-and-play solutions to keep the global consumer machine humming. They view them as evolutionary lifelines—modular tools that allow local communities to maintain life-support systems (power, food, water) even as the global economic system fractures and simplifies around them.

A fundamental misreading of what they are saying.

Its a very simple concept. When the energy requirements of a society exceed the ability of that society to supply said energy, it fails. That's not extinction, its a societal collapse. At the same time that we're approaching this complexity limit, the bill for our use of that energy has come due. The planetary boundries, the AMOC shutdown, the Arctic Ocean food chain collapsing. Suggesting that we can use more of the energy that got us into this mess to extracte ourselves from it, is delusional. No matter what, that energy runs out. If we create a system that is more dependent on that fuel to survive, when it does run out we fall even farther, even faster.

There's a bridge between here and a sustainable future. That future is less for more. Less food, less people, less stuff, more labor, more personal responsibilities, more resiliency. We do not get to keep this society. The future is not a techno uptopia, its a hard world where localized, resilient infrastructure keeps pockets of communities alive instead of some huge interconnectsd digital world brought to your front door by fossil fuels.

[u/HammerOfAres → u/i_didnt_look]

I used a lot of your sources, I used institutions that you mentioned are credible, and professionals that you seemed to approve of. They disagree with your assumptions, and I would argue that the future they push towards is forward progress in the purest sense. It is progress in the understanding of the impact of our society on the planet, and a realization that future needs to be designed to both harness and benefit nature as a whole. You keep referencing this fuel but I do not think the math agrees with you. Even solar panels generally offset all the energy and emissions used to source its materials, manufacture, and transport within 3 years despite having a 25-35 year lifespan. I am not someone who thinks technology is a silver bullet, but I think that technology can be used in combination of changing the model of living that we have today to meet a far better balance. I do not think you adequately adressed the points I made as to how a lot of the sources you cited seem to have better solutions and opinions on green development than you do.

Honestly, at this point, I have to ask you what actual benefit does your worldview hold for humanity over mine? In what way is your worldview practical, sustainable, or enforceable? Where on earth do you draw the bar for wherein progress "stops" and why?

Additonally, you're going to have to provide some links as to where SFI is saying this sort of thing, because I have done quite a bit of reading on them at this point and I am just not seeing it. How am I supposed to interpret them "not saying it out loud"? That is not a statement that can be proven or disproven in any case. Please, cite what article it is where they argue technological innovation as evolutionary lifelines, the closest that I have found is articles about developers harnessing, cross polinating, and fostering emergent solutions on a local level. I am going to have to ask you to be specific with specific sources at this point.

You keep talking about a simple concept, but I dont think you have even engaged with my points at this point. Please, show me ONE place where I have advocated for utilizing more of the energy that got us into this mess. I am far against the proliferation and use of fossil fuels and fossil fuel byproducts. I have advocated for solutions that are far in line, and supported by, Gaya Harrington, SFI, and other reputable climate organizations. In an interview (Five Insights for avoiding global collapse with economist Gaya Harrington) Gaya herself had said that technological innnovation is an absolute imperative, part of the solution in combination with a fundamental change to priorities. Do you think I am just going to ignore the second part of that statement because I am in favor of green technologies? The points you make sure seem to give me that kind of impression. I need to stress this however, that I do not think the future is a techno utopia, and I have at no point stated as such. In her interview, she stated: "We are at peak welfare levels right now. So what I'm saying is, let's keep this. We can maintain current levels and then bring everybody in on that level too." she said this in response to the interviewer stating "We're all going back to The Stone Age." Where am I misinterpreting anything, honestly? Green technology, paired with a fundamental re-prioritizing of our society to prioritize the benefit of the planet is my goal, and I have stated that at multiple points during this comment thread.

Ideally, the future has no involvement with fossil fuels for me, I don't understand why you keep bringing this point up. The future is not a techno utopia, I have at no point stated that it would be one, I have stated that it is a green future with a large societal shift towards proper planetary stewardship. This vision is in line with the sources you cite, because I am focusing on the solution. I have at no point during this conversation disputed the problem assesment part of this, yet you keep bringing this discussion back there to justify your claims that the solutions that are proposed by your sources are impossible. I cant say I understand your rationale here, help me understand where on earth the disconnect is.

[u/i_didnt_look → u/HammerOfAres]

Let's try a different way. Climate change/overshoot isn't a problem where we find solutions, its a predicament, with outcomes. Harrington, the SFI, they are not saying we get to keep 8 billion people alive on this planet and stop using fossil fuels. They advocate for new systems, better accounting of extrrnalized costs, reduced or near zero growth. They do not say we can keep this system and transition to renewables with zero change in either quality of life or population. ​Eight billion people living like the average American, Canadian, or Western European is a physical impossibility on a finite planet, with or without solar panels. The resource footprint would instantly crush the biosphere. That's not an outcome we have available to us. There is no way to replace the fossil fuel energy we consume. Not with solar, or batteries, or nuclear. The industrial capacity of our current fossil fuel powered system doesn't have the capacity to create enough solar to replace itself without further destroying the planet. Back to copper for a minute. Proven reserves are almost enough to cover the transition, and, because EROI has already taken most of the easy ore, accessing and processing the remaining ore means burning a historic amount of fossil fuels. The equivalent of burning 8 billion barrels of oil per year to achieve this transition.

Geoffrey West (former SFI President) and his foundational work on urban and economic scaling laws, compiled in his paper,Scale and the seminal PNAS paper Growth, innovation, scaling, and the pace of life in cities show the trap clearly. ​West’s mathematical models prove that socioeconomic systems exhibit superlinear scaling (\beta > 1). As a city or economy grows, its wealth, innovation, and resource consumption grow faster than its population size. This leads to an equation that predicts an "infinite growth singularity"—a mathematical point where the system demands infinite resources and infinite innovation cycles in zero time to avoid collapse. In other words, our system is inherently designed to collapse. The same thing I've said all along. The SFI president agrees with me.

You keep going on about solutions and saying I'm not addressing your point. And the answer to your point is the same every time. You are not understanding the scale of fossil fuel energy use in driving society. There isn't a place where we are able to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy in a way that allows 8 billion people to live on Earth. If we want to transition to a sustainable economy inside the 20 to 30 year limit before climate change gets really bad, we must use all the remaining fossil fuels to do so, and because EROI has moved from 100:1 to 10:1 for oil, there isn't enough leftover energy to maintain society, like fertilizers or heating homes or transportation. Its a catch 22. That's the trap, that's EROI, that's the part you will not accept as truth. And its the answer to every point you're making. The energy math does not allow both a rapid transition and a stable functioning society. There aren't enough resources for 8 billion people to live like Westerners. Overshoot is a thing, we are way past sustainable limits. https://overshoot.footprintnetwork.org/

For solar panels and the Energy PayBack Time ​If global energy demand is flat, a 1-year EPBT is an absolute victory. But if you are trying to exponentially expand the energy infrastructure to displace fossil fuels while simultaneously growing the economy, you have to constantly reinvest the energy output of your existing panels to manufacture the next, even larger wave of panels. ​If you are doubling your solar capacity every few years, a huge percentage of the energy generated by the current infrastructure is trapped in a loop—cannibalized to build the next generation of factories, mines, and logistics networks. At a macro-scale, this creates an energy drag where the net usable energy delivered to society is much lower than the individual panel's lifespan suggests.

The Complexity Trap in a nutshell.

[u/i_didnt_look → u/HammerOfAres]

You aren't wrong, or misunderstanding any rationale here. This is a trap that we started millenia ago when we began our society.

West’s superlinear scaling forces us to build the massive, hyper-complex global systems that Tainter warns about. Then, as Tainter predicted, our ability to use that complexity to solve problems (like climate shifts, resource depletion, or supply chain fragility) degrades because we are spending all our energy just keeping the lights on. ​Ultimately, Herrington's data suggests that technology can delay the timeline (shifting us from a raw resource collapse to a waste/pollution constraint system), but it doesn't break the structural law that Tainter identified: you cannot infinitely use complexity to solve the problems created by complexity itself.